[Bill Graham]

Les Cargill wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

...


It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one
click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business
they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few
bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork
should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system,
but, what do I know?

The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same
thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every
time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring
that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon.

Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of
trade" to me.

Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a
patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other
companies do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go
to court to challenge the patent.

Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some
of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole
by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so
who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only
claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to
our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece
dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza
place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying
BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis
Armstrong was born.

Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before
he was
30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the
songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older.....

So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within
the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the
creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing
rights organization to demand performance royalties.

I know. They bought the rights of every popular song written after
1927. And so all that music can't be leagally performed in coffee
houses, bars and pizza joints and the like anywhere in the US. (and
perhaps anywhere in the world) This is a crock! The original composers of
these songs
are long dead and gone. why should Walt Disney and BMI get any money
from them?

He who has the gold makes the rules.

A much more reasonable way to do it would be to make any composition
the sole property of the composer for some reasonable period, like
say 60 yeaqrs. So he/she could reap the profits for essentially the
rest of their life. After that, the music should revert to the public
domain.
Th3e idea that some third party can buy it and keep the public from
enjoying it for the rest of time is disgusting to me.

If you paint a painting, and then make prints of that painting and sell the
prints, I can buy one of your prints. then I can hang that pring in my bar,
so my patrons can look at it. You don't have the right to come into my bar
and say, "you are selling more drinks because of my painting, so you have to
pay me more money because you are hanging it on the wall in your commercial
business".

But you can write a song, and sell me a CD with your song on it. And then,
at some later time, BMI can come into my bar and sue me for playing that
song for my customers, even though I have had the CD (or record) of the song
for many years. Why is this? Why is the song different from the painting?
Why should some third party have the right to dictate when and where I play
my recording any more than they should have the right to say where I hang my
painting? This is a logical error in the law. The copyright laws should be
changed.